Post-holiday round-up

December 28th, 2010 by group

What with holiday travel, and various other commitments, we’ve missed a few interesting stories over the last week or so.

First off, AGU has posted highlights from this year’s meeting – mainly the keynote lectures, and there are a few interesting presentations for instance from Tim Palmer on how to move climate modelling forward, Ellen Mosley-Thompson on the ice records, and David Hodell on abrupt climate change during the last deglaciation. (We should really have a ‘videos’ page where we can post these links more permanently – all suggestions for other videos to be placed there can be made in the comments).

More relevant for scientist readers might be Michael Oppenheimer’s talk on the science/policy interface and what scientists can usefully do, in the first Stephen Schneider Lecture. There was a wealth of coverage on AGU in general, and for those with patience, looking through the twitter feeds with #agu10 shows up a lot of interesting commentary from both scientists and journalists. Skeptical Science and Steve Easterbrook also have good round ups. [edited]

Second, there was a great front page piece in the New York Times by Justin Gillis on the Keeling curve – and the role that Dave Keeling’s son, Ralph, is playing in continuing his father’s groundbreaking work. Gillis had a few follow-upblogsthat are also worth reading. We spend a lot of time criticising media descriptions on climate change, so it’s quite pleasing to be praising a high profile story instead.

Finally, something new. Miloslav Nic has put together a beta version of an interactive guide to IPCC AR4, with clickable references, cited author (for instance, all the Schneiders) and journal searches. This should be a very useful resource and hopefully something IPCC can adopt for themselves in the next report.

75 comments on this post.

Petteri:

December 28th, 2010 at 7:49 AM

Great work guys! Keep up the good work in 2011 and thanks for the 2010!

Edward Greisch:

December 28th, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Videos: I would rather see them as text if it is just a person speaking. Sound only would be better than video. I can see video, but my bandwidth causes them to be broken into segments of a few seconds each. Bandwidth isn’t really the issue. Text is easier to deal with, re-read and understand, quote, etc.. You could add still pictures if you think we need to see the person’s face. Videos are “nifty” and new, but really not as useful. Just because you can is not a good reason to do it.

Richard Alley, AGU 2009

“The Biggest Control Knob:
Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”

A very useful review.

Alexandre:

December 28th, 2010 at 10:06 AM

I second Slioch’s suggestion at #4, and add Alley’s presentation at the AGU meeting as well. I’d really like to see that.

CM:

December 28th, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Suggestion: Bump links to Steve Easterbrook’s helpful summaries (#3) up into the OP.

[Response: Done! – gavin]

Maya from the peanut gallery:

December 28th, 2010 at 10:35 AM

I need help finding something, if someone can point me to it, please? I read the NYT piece, and it occurred to me that I want to know how we figured out that pre-industrial levels of CO2 were 280 ppm, and for how long they’ve been stable. I know it’s basically from ice cores, but I don’t know any more detail than that. When I google it, I end up on denialist sites that claim the ice cores are inaccurate, that there’s a gazillion other measurements that conflict with those numbers, that plant stomata give us different numbers, and so on, blah blah. Since pretty much anyone can say anything when it’s not peer-reviewed (which isn’t perfect but hopefully winnows out at least the most egregious tripe), I don’t really care. I’m a lot more interested in the actual scientific investigation.

Any resources you can point me to are much appreciated!

Geoff Wexler:

December 28th, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Re #3

Easier and faster

I just tested this by trying to recall some details about recent improvements in understanding the data from the ice cores. So I googled ‘Easterbrook Alley notes’, opened this link:

I am not too experienced at retriving this data myself, but here is one set of data that seems to provide what you are asking. It is ice core data from the Vostok location in Antarctica.

If I read it correctly it provides you CO2 concentrations going back about 250,000 years.

Maya from the peanut gallery:

December 28th, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Wyoming, thank you! The data description has journal references, too, that will be helpful. I’m not going to run the data myself, but I do want to know how someone else ran it. I very much appreciate your help.

CM:

December 28th, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Maya,

beyond the ice core record (which has been extended back 800,000 years or so):

There are four primary proxies used for pre-Quaternary CO2 levels (Jasper and Hayes, 1990; Royer et al., 2001; Royer, 2003). Two proxies apply the fact that biological entities in soils and seawater have carbon isotope ratios that are distinct from the atmosphere (Cerling, 1991; Freeman and Hayes, 1992; Yapp and Poths, 1992; Pagani et al., 2005). The third proxy uses the ratio of boron isotopes (Pearson and Palmer, 2000), while the fourth uses the empirical relationship between stomatal pores on tree leaves and atmospheric CO2 content (McElwain and Chaloner, 1995; Royer, 2003). (AR4 WG1 ch. 6.3.1)

You could use Nic Miloslav’s Zvon site, linked in the OP, to look up the references and learn more.

Annabelle:

December 28th, 2010 at 2:29 PM

I would like to know what you guys make of the claims by George Monbiot in the Guardian and Judah Cohen in the NYT, that the recent cold in Europe and other places has been caused by “global warming”. Is there a valid scientific basis for these claims?

Maya from the peanut gallery:

December 28th, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Aahh, that must be the stomata data that one of the denialist sites was blathering on about. Thank you, I will check out all of those!

Maya from the peanut gallery:

December 28th, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Annabelle, if you’ll go read the post “Cold winter in a world of warming?” it’s about that very subject. Enjoy.

Didactylos:

December 28th, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Maya: for the longest direct record of CO2, look at the EPICA Dome C ice core data. For high resolution recent CO2 concentrations (over the last 1-2 thousand years) look at Law Dome.

Law Dome is useful for bridging the gap between our direct air measurements and the longer, lower resolution ice core records such as EPICA and Vostok.

Tim Palmer mentions the 1987 storm in his presentation. The weather forecaster that got it wrong was Michael Fish. Here’s the video clip:

MikeA:

December 28th, 2010 at 5:59 PM

I’d like to suggest that you should be posting all video’s on uTube. It’s searchable and universally accessible.

December 28th, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Thanks for highlighting several relevant and important items. For those of us who don’t have enough time for much deep study, it’s very nice to have summaries like this to winnow out highly relevant items.

Mike Roddy:

December 28th, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Good links and summary, except that you left out Greg Craven’s impassioned speech. The fact that he makes some working scientists uncomfortable should not detract from its importance.

Many of us have been saying the same thing he did for quite a while, which is: the time has come for climate scientists to go beyond simple communication of the current state of the science. Every day, you are passionately attacked by cynical instruments of industry, and a scream may be a better response than a mutter. The oil and coal companies are, after all, steering us to hell on earth, and you are the ones who are going to have to fight them.

The important work that you have accomplished has created the responsibility to work toward inspiring people to act on it. Policy and evidence are now so intertwined that the time has come to speak more passionately, and to do so in public, in front of the media. Kind of like what Steven Schneider did so well.

Alley and Santer were great on television, and there are others with comparable talent. Your presence alone at that hearing showed Rohrabacher and Michaels to be just what they are. Don’t wait for another hearing to give them another spanking. It might hurt you too, but you will be doing it for their own good.

David B. Benson:

December 28th, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Model revision time?

Eric Swanson:

December 28th, 2010 at 9:19 PM

#19 – Mike Roddy
There is a transcript of Greg Craven’s speech posted on his website. He presentation certainly evokes much emotion and I imagine it was much stronger in person. I think he’s probably correct in that there must be another way to convince the public of the severity of the problem of climate change. I’ve tried when I had the opportunity, especially when I worked on a few political campaigns. The trouble is, the political process these days doesn’t allow for such concerns to be moved to the top of the agenda. Most people are concerned with their own welfare, with jobs and the economy being today’s main focus. Worse, politicians don’t get elected by promising austerity, which is what would be required to deal with the situation.

There are also other sides to the problem, such as Peak Oil, which some say has already passed. Once the oil production begins to decline and the price spirals upward, the outcry will be to give us more, as the economy could slide into an even more serious problems. The vast majority of the population has mo clue about finite resources and ecological limits, only worrying about putting food on the table today and paying the rent on the first of the month. If that weren’t enough, at least 25% of the US population sees the Bible as absolute truth and another 25% or so takes the message as given to be the basis of their lives, thus these folks will oppose anyone who tries to tell them otherwise. The US conservatives, typified by the Tea Party Movement, appears to be just as serious about their view that there’s no problem with global warming as Mr. Craven appears to be in his rant. The country appears to be slowly tearing apart, separating into opposing camps, much like what happened 150 years ago when the South decided to leave the Union.

I deeply wish I knew how to bring people back to an understanding that we all live on the same Earth and must protect it’s natural life support systems. I fear that the only way will be for some massive calamity to hit all of us so hard that we have no other choice. That would certainly be painful and there’s no guarantee that things wouldn’t just revert to conditions last seem hundreds of years ago, including a much smaller population on Earth. I’ve felt that way for a long time, which may be one reason I have no children…

Mike C:

December 28th, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Links to David Archer’s excellent “Global Warming for non-science majors” lectures would be a good addition to any videos page.

December 29th, 2010 at 12:48 AM

#12–Annabelle, see the post on “Cold Winter In A World Of Warming?” I don’t think this is a “settled question,” but you can find out about the state of play at the moment.

December 29th, 2010 at 5:18 AM

I read the piece about the Keeling curve in the NY Times. I am not surprised you liked it but definitely worried. I think the following passage says it all:

“But the essence of his scientific legacy was his passion for doing things in a meticulous way. It explains why, even as challengers try to pick apart every other aspect of climate science, his half-century record of carbon dioxide measurements stands unchallenged.”

Note how indignated the author is about the terrible people who dare to question the climate dogmas. But the whole idea of science is to “try to pick apart every aspect” in all fields and most scientists are happy when their work is challenged in a serious away. The way this article is written gives a strong impression that climate science shuns this kind of scrutiny. Is that a sound attitude of a sound science and sound scientists?

December 29th, 2010 at 5:40 AM

ES 22: If that weren’t enough, at least 25% of the US population sees the Bible as absolute truth and another 25% or so takes the message as given to be the basis of their lives, thus these folks will oppose anyone who tries to tell them otherwise.

BPL: Did you miss where 86 leading evangelicals from Al Sharpton to Pat Robertson signed a statement saying Christians need to do more to protect the environment and fight global warming?

pete best:

December 29th, 2010 at 5:54 AM

Read the book “Merchants of Doubt”, its says an awful lot regarding the political system, the media system (equal airtime to both sides of the argument) and covers all that has hapenned when scientific findings upset the capatalist system which would mean one of several things inlcuding job losses, loss of revenue, loss of influence and hence foundations are founded and odd but politically charged arguments are put forward that have worked for many a year.

It is a very eye opening read but for many here it will just reinforce that what is already known and that is any weakness in the scientific arguments on ACC/AGW is exploited as needing more research (scientists have to acknowledge this I suppose as its in their nature)and hence action and legislation is delayed.

Edward Greisch:

December 29th, 2010 at 8:24 AM

18 MikeA: Utube is NOT universally accessible. What about people who are still running Mac OS9? .txt is universally accessible.

[Response: We are discussing multiple methods to get information across, not suggesting that video be exclusive. We are very conscious that not everyone in the world has broadband and a new MacBook Air…. – gavin]

December 29th, 2010 at 8:33 AM

Eric Swanson at #22:

One of the scientists who does the Rapid Response spoke at a church:

\Retired astrophysicist Dr. Ray Weymann of Atascadero weighed in on some hot and cold topics covering “Astronomy’s Role in Climate Science” last Thursday at the United Methodist Church in San Luis Obispo.

Weymann explained everything from the composition of the earth’s atmosphere to ice age cycles and the evolution of the sun in a two-hour presentation as part of the The Central Coast Astronomical Society (CCAS) monthly meeting.\

Instead of attacking religion, you should be speaking about how Christians and other faiths can be stewards of the earth.

I am an expert on Soviet propaganda about religion.

I get really sick of poorly-informed people writing that religious people believe the Bible and not global warming. If you are really an expert on what religious people believe, why don’t you cite your sources for your statistics? Or did you just pull them out of your hat?

The Bible does not address the issue of global warming. It does say that men should be \stewards of the Earth,\ and that is what climate scientists are saying we should do.

Climate scientists and the Bible agree about this moral issue.

The Vatican considers global warming a serious problem. Their UN representative gave a speech about it at the UN.

Religion is an extremely important political influence. When you denigrate scientificially uninformed religious people and announce that they are against global warming, you may actually antagonize them and cause them to become denialists.

You are telling people that if they are religious they must reject global warming, and if they are ignorant, they may agree with you!

Communists always harped so on science versus \ignorant\ religion, even as their \scientific\ Marxism-Leninism was anything but scientific and had nothing to offer about science or morality. They certainly denigrated the environment in their country. And they built their communist paradise with the slave labor of millions of religious people whom they denigrated for their ignorance.

These days, Pravda hilights good points about religion and denigrates climate science. This is why we have an amazing pnenomenon: ignorant conservative blogs are quoting Pravda.

Is that what you want? If so, keep trashing religion as an enemy of climate science.

The communist propaganda apparatus always used cooperative clergy to promote the Soviet foreign policy—\peacemaking\ in international meetings. The communists recognise the power of religion and try to coopt it for their political agenda.

Islamist radicals love it when Americans denigrate Muslims. They understand that denigrating Islam helps their side.

Religious people are being told BY DENIALISTS that faith is at odds with the science of global warming. The denialists recognize how important religion is to people, so they try to enlist it on their side.

Why do you want to give aid and comfort that canard? Why not tell how the Catholic Church is addressing global warming in the UN so religious people read about that?

Instead of dissing religion with uninformed stereotypes, Why don’t you write about churches who have famous scientists speak to their members about how we can be stewards of the earth?

If people see that scientists come to their churches to discuss how Christians can be \stewards of the earth,\ they will listen and learn. They won’t listen to you if you characterize their faith as ignorant.

Even the denialists, like the communists, are fooling people by claiming they have scientific truth.

Ray Ladbury:

December 29th, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Steven Jorsater: “But the whole idea of science is to “try to pick apart every aspect” in all fields and most scientists are happy when their work is challenged in a serious away.”

Oh very true, but the “picking apart” usually isn’t applied to areas of science that have been well established for decades to centuries, and it isn’t usually applied by food tubes who are utterly ignorant of the science involved. That kind of thing tends to piss just about any expert off. Google “Dunning-Kruger”.

Maya from the peanut gallery:

December 29th, 2010 at 9:54 AM

BPL: Did you miss where 86 leading evangelicals from Al Sharpton to Pat Robertson signed a statement saying Christians need to do more to protect the environment and fight global warming?

Me: and then there’s deeply disturbing things like this. ‘Various conservative Christian leaders have united with the Cornwall Alliance for the release of a shocking new 12-part DVD series, “Resisting The Green Dragon,” that attempts to debase and discredit the environmental movement by portraying it as “one of the greatest deceptions of our day” that is “seducing your children” and “striving to put America and the world under its destructive control.”‘

[Response: As Ray mentions below, this is very much a reflection of political, not religious, stance. Since discussions of religion almost invariably go off the rails at some point, can be please move back to scientific issues? Thanks. -gavin]

Note, however, that mainstream religions (both Protestant and Catholic) are statistically indistinguishable from the US population as a whole.

Political affiliation is a better predictor (note different timeframe of survey).

Regardless, denial of reality if probably not a winning strategy in the long term for either a religious or political movement.

Didactylos:

December 29th, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Steven Jörsäter: Note that the article says “challengers” not “scientists”. Real scientists can and do improve on all areas of climate science. It’s their job, and it’s how science works.

Unqualified challengers, though – self-appointed auditors, floundering out of their depth – what useful contributions have they made? The vast majority of such “sceptics” have contributed nothing at all. The very few that are actually qualified and have put in the work have contributed only insignificant corrections to minor details, and have not advanced the field of climate science in the slightest.

The article isn’t quite right, though. The more extreme deniers are quite happy to tilt against the Keeling curve, with the most ludicrous and nonsensical arguments. But those nutters are quietly ignored even by the self-appointed, self-described “sceptics”.

I wish people spent more time being sceptical than they do pretending to be sceptical. The sheer gullibility and credulous belief of so many self-described sceptics is just crazy. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

Eric Swanson:

December 29th, 2010 at 10:05 AM

[edit – sorry, but this is not the place for those kinds of religion/science discussions. There are many other locations to discuss them, but very few where people can focus on climate. Please take it there.]

Hunt Janin:

December 29th, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Re the West Antarctic Ice Sheet(WAIS):

If anyone might want to read a short draft (8double-spaced pages) on the WAIS, they can contact me off-list at huntjanin@aol.com.

December 29th, 2010 at 10:25 AM

SJ 25: The way this article is written gives a strong impression that climate science shuns this kind of scrutiny. Is that a sound attitude of a sound science and sound scientists?

BPL: Heck, no! Fortunately, climate science is not at all like that in real life.

CM:

December 29th, 2010 at 10:43 AM

This is the only thing I’d like to say about religion, and I don’t think it’s too far off the rails: Any strategy for communicating the science to the public — let alone any strategy for promoting policy measures — needs to carefully analyze different segments of public opinion and look for ways they can be won over to your point of view, rather than needlessly alienated from it. With a fairly religious public like the American one, that means, among other things, that you have to consider carefully the kind of data Ray (#32) points to, and the kind of arguments Snapple (#29) makes (and that I, for one, agree with).

Eric Swanson:

December 29th, 2010 at 11:19 AM

#34

Discussing climate science as found thru conferences and publications from the AGU and other science oriented organizations is great fun. But, lacking ways to transmit this knowledge into the public mind, there’s really no point, IMHO. One might as well be recording a slow motion disaster movie, as the Earth’s natural life support systems continue to degrade and populations begin to die off. Indeed, this is the doomer viewpoint, which is what I think we are likely to experience. I think the conflict between religion and science has very much to do with the problem as we know the American public is hopelessly ignorant of basic science. When push comes to shove, people will not accept the restrictions in their life styles which will be necessary to cut our carbon emissions until the damage becomes so obvious that it will be too late. I’m an engineer who has been intensly focused on energy issues and have been aware of the Limits to Growth scenario for more than 35 years. I have yet to see how society will replace our present massive use of fossil carbon in time to minimize the impact of the decline in available low cost liquid fuels after Peak Oil.

BTW, if you are really going to ignore discussion of religion in the climate change discussion, please delete Snapple’s post, #29. Else, you all would appear to have a pro-myth, anti-science bias. Not that this is unusual these days…

[Response: Really? You think I have a pro-myth anti-science bias because I don’t want discussions to get derailed by repetitive and uninformative discussions that have been hacked to death in almost every other blog site to no result whatsoever? Whatever. This discussion is closed. – gavin]

December 29th, 2010 at 11:28 AM

How odd. The so-called “Evangelical” Cornwall Alliance doesn’t identify a single religious leader or a single religious denomination on its home page.

There are two guys who don’t seem to be clergymen on the front page. And Lord Monckton. Last time we heard from him, he was dismissing Dr. John Abraham’s Catholic University as a “Bible college” because he supported AGW.

No religious denomination is mentioned. This organization just characterizes itself as a “Leading Evangelical Group.”

Which one, it doesn’t say.

One guy, James Tonkowich, claims vaguely:

“My skepticism about [anthropogenic global warming] arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas….”

The other guy, E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.,
is a “spokesman” for this so-called “alliance.”

This is a “religious” organization the same way that some denialist sites characterize themselves as “scientific.”

I don’t think any real Evangelical groups had anything to do with the creation of this front group. The sponsors are trying to fool gullible people into thinking climate denialism is an Evangelical position so they will sign the petition and send money.

This is why it would be nice if scientists could speak in real churches. I note this front group is co-oping the theme of stewardship of the earth.

Blame denialists, not religious people for this fake site.

December 29th, 2010 at 11:40 AM

James Tonkowich is on the denialist SPPI site.

“What will happen to jobs, living standards and families under restrictive energy policies?

Pennsylvania is lucky. Even amid this prolonged recession and depressingly high unemployment (9.5% in PA), families and businesses in the Keystone State are still paying just 9.4 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity.

That’s due in large part to the fact that Pennsylvania gets 53% of its electricity from coal. A lot of people vilify that black rock. But just think how much easier it is to cool our homes and cook our food at this price – or operate a factory, farm, office, store, hospital, school, church … or government agency.”

Here is his CV. It doesn’t say he is a physicist, as he claimed on the Cornwall Alliance site. He claimes to have a degree in Theology.

Ric Merritt:

December 29th, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Steven Jörsäter #25: You have missed the important points so completely that my head hurts.

Yes indeed, it is essential and honorable to try to think how scientific conclusions might be picked apart and challenged. Also (and this you don’t mention), in the arena of public life that we all inhabit willy-nilly, after a reasonable amount (indeed an amount far beyond reasonable) of picking and challenging has already occurred, and the conclusions still look pretty solid at their core, there comes a time when any citizen of good will and decent judgment must begin to demand action. Perhaps milder actions at first, then with increasing urgency as the situation requires.

Many of us citizens of good will and decent judgment passed the point of demanding those first, rather mild, actions about 20 years ago. How about you?

December 29th, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Snapple 39,

Good detective work! Thanks!

December 29th, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I have a suggestion for your video page: The Dessler-Lindzen debate [http://www.desmogblog.com/debating-science-and-policy-lindzen-defensive] that took place earlier this year at the University of Virginia School of Law. For me, the best part is Dessler’s presentation. He does a great job explaining the climate sensitivity equation and how it accounts for feedbacks. The production quality is poor, but Dessler‘s presentation makes up for it.

[Response: Not sure about the Auburn U. video. I had a stinking cold and could barely focus. Plus the slides were somewhat messed up during the conversion process for the video (and I’m not completely sure they were quite what I showed in any case!). There are some better versions of basically the same talk around i.e. here. – gavin]

December 29th, 2010 at 6:59 PM

I’m in the midst of a debate at a Climate Crock video, about UHI effect, etc. It started with me citing the reasons why the sun can’t be responsible for late 20th century and 21st century warming. I offered the argument about nighttime temps rising more than daytime. The reply from RealOldOne2 was that the greenhouse effect should increase warming equally day and night, and that the warm nights are a signature of UHI.

Interesting, but I don’t see that it changes global avg temps enough to matter. Any response/suggestions here or at the climate crock video, would be appreciated.

Same Ordinary Fool:

December 29th, 2010 at 7:12 PM

MASTER LIST……….One-line link/listings (i.e., author’s names, RC article titles, or categories) are sufficient for directed research among like items.
But they aren’t adequate for someone just browsing for something interesting to watch. The material is of varying duration, and ranges from the lecture hall to CSPAN to a (extreme) weather report. Better:

Title/link (~2007)(~60min) originator
Descriptive text
[category]

Consistency is not a virtue. This is the obvious place to add links to other discussions, the original paper, etc.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER……….is the obvious first organization for a master list. [The category each item fits into can be mentioned in brackets – to make the search among categories easier.]

There’s obviously less interest in the older videos in a field that has progressed as quickly as climate science. Any exceptions can be highlighted in the accompanying descriptive text.

The greatest interest will be in the most recent listings, for people catching up on what’s newly available. From an AGU presentation or press conference. A NPR interview. Or from NOVA, last night:

OTHER……….Crock of the Week & Potholer 54 should eventually get separate listings for each episode, for distribution into different categories.
Some TED talks belong. And how many Universities have lecture series?
Continuing programming……….deserves separate mention: ‘Climate TV'(Canada) and ‘The Climate Show'(Hot Topic). And in audio there is ‘Irregular Climate'(Scruffy Dan).
Video lectures……….like David Archer’s, also deserve separate mention.
‘AUDIO’……….material should also be collected, since it’s of similar interest to the same people. Separation can be maintained by simply prefacing audio entries: ‘AUDIO’.

BENEFITS……….should far outweigh the efforts. Individual listings are likely to be sent in by the institutions that produced the videos, or the participants themselves. Some viewers will contribute a listing because they believe that other people should also see it.

Consider the most obvious benefit. People who are on the fence ‘climaticly’ are more likely to watch a video, than read Tamino.

Thomas:

December 29th, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Snapple @29. Thanks!

Mike C:

December 30th, 2010 at 5:31 AM

@ frflyer

Realoldone2 is wrong for two reasons. Firstly the increase in warm nights is global, UHI only affects urban areas. UHI can’t explain warming over oceans, in the lower atmosphere and the rapid warming in areas like the arctic where few people live.

Secondly he has the greenhouse effect wrong. The prediction of the greenhouse effect is faster warming of nights than days. From memory solar warming would be expected to warm days faster.

“The influence is in general greater in the winter than in the summer, except in the case of the parts that lie between the maximum and the pole. The influence will also be greater the higher the value of ν, that is in general somewhat greater for land than for ocean. On account of the nebulosity of the Southern hemisphere, the effect will be less there than in the Northern hemisphere. An increase in the quantity of carbonic acid will of course diminish the difference in temperature between day and night. A very important secondary elevation of the effect will be produced in those places that alter their albedo by the extension or regression of the snow-covering (see p. 257 [omitted from this excerpt–CJG]), and this secondary effect will probably remove the maximum effect from lower parallels to the neighbourhood of the poles[12].”